Overall CPU Comparison

Unreal Tournament 3 Demo Beta

Unreal Tournament 3 Demo Beta

Unreal Tournament 3 Demo Beta

Because of the AMD performance issues we've encountered, even the Athlon 64 X2 6400+ isn't really competitive in our overall CPU tests. The 6400+ is marginally faster than the Core 2 Duo E4500, despite being priced higher than the E6750.

On the Intel side, the sweet spot for performance looks to be the Core 2 Duo E6550, or if you want to go cheaper, the E4500. Remember what we discovered about the impact of L2 cache on performance: you need around 20% more clocks to make up for a 2MB L2 deficit on Intel's CPUs, and about 35% to make up for a 3MB deficit.

AMD vs. Intel - Clock for Clock High End GPU Performance
POST A COMMENT

72 Comments

View All Comments

  • kmmatney - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link

    The benchmarks show that AMD cpu's are not performing as well as they should here. This will hopefully be fixed in the future.

    You sound like someone who has an AMD processor and is bitter...
    Reply
  • clairvoyant129 - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link

    These are the same people who said there is a big difference using Netburst CPUs and K8s. Right, if a Netburst CPU coupled with a 7800GTX got 60 FPS when a K8 got 90 FPS, it was a huge difference to them but now it doesn't seem like it. Reply
  • hubajube - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link

    quote:

    The benchmarks show that AMD cpu's are not performing as well as they should here.
    And how should they be performing in your opinion? 100 fps is not good enough for you? How about 500 fps? Is that better?

    quote:

    You sound like someone who has an AMD processor and is bitter...
    I'm definitely not bitter, just realistic. The difference between 90 and 180 fps is totally irrelevant. An Intel E2140 gets over 90fps. Hell, a Sempron with a decent video card could play this game extremely well.

    Benchmarks are great in that you can use them to judge how your system will perform with a game but they're not the be all end all of performance nor is a CPU that does 100 fps a pile of shit because it doesn't do 105 fps.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link

    The point is that at 1920x1200 we're at a completely GPU-limited resolution (as shown by the fact that the difference between E6550 and X6850 is only 1%). AMD still runs 9% slower, so it seems that architecture, cache, etc. means that even at GPU limited resolutions AMD is still slower than we would expect. Is it unplayable? No, but we're looking at the top-end AMD CPU (6400+) and in CPU-limited scenarios it's still 10% slower than an E6550.

    It seems to me that we're in a similar situation to what we saw at the end of the NetBurst era: higher clock speeds really aren't bringing much in the way of performance improvements. AMD needs a lot more than just CPU tweaks to close the gap, which is why we're all waiting to see how Phenom compares.
    Reply
  • clairvoyant129 - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link

    That 9% was using 1920x1200. Majority of PC users use a much lower resolution than that. At 1024x768, it's much much higher.

    Think again moron.
    Reply
  • KAZANI - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link

    And most people don't care about framerates higher than their monitor's refresh rate. Both processors were well above 100 frames in 1024*768. Reply
  • hubajube - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link

    No moron, 1024x768 on a 8800GTX is NOT what "most PC users users" are going to be using. The video cards that "most PC users users" will be using was not tested in this benchmark. YOU need to actually THINK next time. Reply
  • clairvoyant129 - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link

    Where did I say majority of PC users with an 8800GTX use 1024x768? What's your idea of testing CPUs? Benchmark them by using GPU limited resolutions? What a joke. You people never complained when Anand compared Netburst CPUs to K8s at 1024x768 or lower resolutions.

    Don't get your panties twisted AMD fanny.
    Reply
  • IKeelU - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link

    Ummm...how do you launch the flybys used in this analysis? Reply
  • customcoms - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link

    You mention that you cranked the resolution to 1920x1200, but the charts still say 1024x768...the results look like those at 1920x1200 though, so I'm guessing its a typo. GPU bound CPU Comparison charts here: http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&...">http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&... Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now